{
  "type": "practice-guide",
  "canonical": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/california",
  "links": [
    {
      "rel": "self",
      "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/california.json",
      "type": "application/json"
    },
    {
      "rel": "alternate",
      "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/california",
      "type": "text/html"
    },
    {
      "rel": "alternate",
      "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/california/markdown",
      "type": "text/markdown"
    },
    {
      "rel": "alternate",
      "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/california/json",
      "type": "application/json"
    }
  ],
  "data": {
    "topic": "invention-assignment",
    "state": "california",
    "frontmatter": {
      "title": "Employee Invention Assignment in California",
      "description": "California Labor Code Sections 2870–2872 void any clause forcing an employee to assign an invention developed on their own time, unrelated to the employer's business and without its resources; the employer must give written notice; and overbroad post-employment trailing-assignment clauses are void under Section 16600.",
      "state": "California",
      "lastReviewed": "2026-06-29",
      "license": "CC BY 4.0",
      "authors": [
        "steven-obiajulu"
      ],
      "summary": {
        "bottomLine": "A California employer may require assignment of inventions tied to its business or to the employee's work, but Section 2870 voids forced assignment of true own-time, own-resource inventions, the employer must give written notice under Section 2872, and overbroad holdover clauses are void under Section 16600.",
        "keyLaw": "Cal. Lab. Code §§ 2870–2872; Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 16600",
        "statutoryCarveOut": "statute",
        "defaultOwnership": "employee",
        "employeeNoticeRequired": "yes",
        "holdoverClauseLimit": "statutoryLimit",
        "carveOutScope": "An invention the employee developed entirely on their own time, without the employer's equipment, supplies, facilities, or trade secrets, that neither relates to the employer's business or anticipated R&D nor results from the employee's work"
      },
      "about": [
        "California Labor Code Section 2870 invention assignment",
        "California employee invention ownership",
        "California Section 2872 written notice requirement",
        "California holdover trailing assignment clause",
        "Whitewater v. Alleshouse Section 16600",
        "Stanford v. Roche default invention ownership",
        "California own-time invention carve-out"
      ],
      "translations": [
        {
          "language": "中文",
          "status": "planned"
        },
        {
          "language": "Español",
          "status": "planned"
        },
        {
          "language": "Português",
          "status": "planned"
        },
        {
          "language": "Deutsch",
          "status": "planned"
        }
      ],
      "relatedForm": {
        "slug": "openagreements-confidentiality-invention-assignment-agreement"
      }
    },
    "questions": [
      {
        "slug": "statutory-carve-out",
        "label": "Can the employer require assignment of every invention?",
        "heading": "Can a California employer require assignment of every invention?",
        "answerText": "No. California Labor Code section 2870 carves out a category of inventions that an assignment clause simply cannot reach: anything the employee developed entirely on their own time, without the employer's equipment, supplies, facilities, or trade-secret information, that neither relates to the employer's business or anticipated research and development nor results from the employee's work. To the extent a clause purports to capture those own-time inventions, it is against the public policy of the state and unenforceable.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "stat-2870",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Cal. Lab. Code § 2870",
            "citation": "Cal. Lab. Code § 2870(a).",
            "url": "https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=LAB&sectionNum=2870",
            "proposition": "Section 2870(a) makes an assignment clause inapplicable to an invention the employee developed entirely on their own time without the employer's equipment, supplies, facilities, or trade-secret information, unless the invention relates to the employer's business or anticipated research and development, or results from the employee's work.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Any provision in an employment agreement which provides that an employee shall assign, or offer to assign, any of his or her rights in an invention to his or her employer shall not apply to an invention that the employee developed entirely on his or her own time without using the employer’s equipment, supplies, facilities, or trade secret information except for those inventions that either: (1) Relate at the time of conception or reduction to practice of the invention to the employer’s business, or actual or demonstrably anticipated research or development of the employer; or (2) Result from any work performed by the employee for the employer.",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/california#src-stat-2870"
          },
          {
            "id": "stat-2870-policy",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Cal. Lab. Code § 2870",
            "citation": "Cal. Lab. Code § 2870(b).",
            "url": "https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=LAB&sectionNum=2870",
            "proposition": "Section 2870(b) makes a provision that purports to require assignment of an otherwise-excluded own-time invention against the public policy of the state and unenforceable.",
            "verbatimQuote": "To the extent a provision in an employment agreement purports to require an employee to assign an invention otherwise excluded from being required to be assigned under subdivision (a), the provision is against the public policy of this state and is unenforceable.",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/california#src-stat-2870-policy"
          },
          {
            "id": "cubic-disjunctive",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Cubic Corp. v. Marty",
            "citation": "Cubic Corp. v. Marty, 185 Cal. App. 3d 438 (1986).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2139488/cubic-corp-v-marty/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2139488/cubic-corp-v-marty/#:~:text=The%20Legislature%20used%20the%20disjunctive,2870%20does%20cover%20the%20invention.",
            "proposition": "Cubic Corp. v. Marty construes section 2870's two exceptions disjunctively: the statute protects the invention for the employee only when it falls within neither exception; if the invention either relates to the employer's business or anticipated R&D or results from the employee's work, the employer may require its assignment.",
            "verbatimQuote": "The Legislature used the disjunctive “or”—if either of the two conditions (scope of business or work otherwise performed by the employee for the employer) are not met, then section 2870 does cover the invention.",
            "date": "1986-09-23",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/california#src-cubic-disjunctive"
          },
          {
            "id": "cubic-either",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Cubic Corp. v. Marty",
            "citation": "Cubic Corp. v. Marty, 185 Cal. App. 3d 438 (1986).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2139488/cubic-corp-v-marty/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2139488/cubic-corp-v-marty/#:~:text=we%20construe%20the%20statutory%20language,invention%20under%20an%20assignment%20agreement.",
            "proposition": "Cubic explains that where the invention either comes within the employer's business or results from work the employee did for the employer, the employer has a right to the invention under an assignment agreement.",
            "verbatimQuote": "we construe the statutory language to cover both the situation where the invention comes within the scope of the employer’s business (actual or demonstrably anticipated) and the situation where the invention was not within the usual scope of the employer’s business but resulted from work the employee did for the employer. If either situation is present, then the employer has a right to the invention under an assignment agreement.",
            "date": "1986-09-23",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/california#src-cubic-either"
          },
          {
            "id": "stat-2871",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Cal. Lab. Code § 2871",
            "citation": "Cal. Lab. Code § 2871.",
            "url": "https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=LAB&sectionNum=2871",
            "proposition": "Section 2871 bars an employer from requiring a provision made void and unenforceable by section 2870 as a condition of employment or continued employment.",
            "verbatimQuote": "No employer shall require a provision made void and unenforceable by Section 2870 as a condition of employment or continued employment.",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/california#src-stat-2871"
          },
          {
            "id": "cubic-condition",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Cubic Corp. v. Marty",
            "citation": "Cubic Corp. v. Marty, 185 Cal. App. 3d 438 (1986).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2139488/cubic-corp-v-marty/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2139488/cubic-corp-v-marty/#:~:text=The%20Legislature%20has%20stated%20an,of%20employment%20or%20continued%20employment.",
            "proposition": "Cubic reaffirms that an agreement to assign an invention falling within section 2870 cannot be made a condition of employment or continued employment.",
            "verbatimQuote": "The Legislature has stated an agreement to assign an invention which falls within Labor Code section 2870 cannot be made a condition of employment or continued employment.",
            "date": "1986-09-23",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/california#src-cubic-condition"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "employee-notice",
        "label": "Must the employer give the employee written notice of the carve-out?",
        "heading": "Must a California employer notify the employee?",
        "answerText": "Yes. Section 2872 requires an employer whose agreement contains an invention-assignment provision to give the employee, at the time the agreement is made, a written notification that the agreement does not apply to an invention that qualifies fully under section 2870. The same section places the burden of proof on the employee who later claims the carve-out's protection.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "stat-2872",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Cal. Lab. Code § 2872",
            "citation": "Cal. Lab. Code § 2872.",
            "url": "https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=LAB&sectionNum=2872",
            "proposition": "Section 2872 requires an employer whose agreement contains an assignment provision to give the employee, at the time the agreement is made, a written notification that the agreement does not apply to an invention qualifying fully under section 2870.",
            "verbatimQuote": "If an employment agreement entered into after January 1, 1980, contains a provision requiring the employee to assign or offer to assign any of his or her rights in any invention to his or her employer, the employer must also, at the time the agreement is made, provide a written notification to the employee that the agreement does not apply to an invention which qualifies fully under the provisions of Section 2870.",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/california#src-stat-2872"
          },
          {
            "id": "stat-2872-burden",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Cal. Lab. Code § 2872",
            "citation": "Cal. Lab. Code § 2872.",
            "url": "https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=LAB&sectionNum=2872",
            "proposition": "Section 2872 places the burden of proof on the employee claiming the benefit of section 2870's own-time carve-out.",
            "verbatimQuote": "In any suit or action arising thereunder, the burden of proof shall be on the employee claiming the benefits of its provisions.",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/california#src-stat-2872-burden"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "default-ownership",
        "label": "Absent a written assignment, who owns the invention?",
        "heading": "Who owns an invention by default in California?",
        "answerText": "The inventor. Absent a written assignment, the baseline rule under federal patent law — which governs who holds title to a patentable invention in California as elsewhere — is that rights belong to the employee who conceived it. The U.S. Supreme Court restated that premise in Stanford v. Roche, and although others may acquire an interest, that interest must trace back to the inventor. A California employer therefore depends on a written present-assignment clause — constrained by sections 2870–2872 — to take title at all.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "stanford-inventor",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Bd. of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior Univ. v. Roche Molecular Systems",
            "citation": "Bd. of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior Univ. v. Roche Molecular Sys., Inc., 563 U.S. 776 (2011).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/218133/board-of-trustees-of-the-leland-stanford-junior-university-v-roche/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/218133/board-of-trustees-of-the-leland-stanford-junior-university-v-roche/#:~:text=Since%201790%2C%20the%20patent%20law,invention%20belong%20to%20the%20inventor.",
            "proposition": "Stanford v. Roche confirms the long-standing premise of U.S. patent law that rights in an invention belong to the inventor.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Since 1790, the patent law has operated on the premise that rights in an invention belong to the inventor.",
            "date": "2011-06-06",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/california#src-stanford-inventor"
          },
          {
            "id": "stanford-traceback",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Bd. of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior Univ. v. Roche Molecular Systems",
            "citation": "Bd. of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior Univ. v. Roche Molecular Sys., Inc., 563 U.S. 776 (2011).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/218133/board-of-trustees-of-the-leland-stanford-junior-university-v-roche/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/218133/board-of-trustees-of-the-leland-stanford-junior-university-v-roche/#:~:text=Thus%2C%20although%20others%20may%20acquire,trace%20back%20to%20the%20inventor.",
            "proposition": "Stanford v. Roche holds that although others may acquire an interest in an invention, that interest as a general rule must trace back to the inventor — so an employer takes title only through an assignment from the employee-inventor.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Thus, although others may acquire an interest in an invention, any such interest — as a general rule — must trace back to the inventor.",
            "date": "2011-06-06",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/california#src-stanford-traceback"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "holdover-clause-limit",
        "label": "Are post-employment trailing-assignment clauses enforceable?",
        "heading": "Are trailing-assignment (holdover) clauses enforceable in California?",
        "answerText": "No, not when they reach genuinely post-employment inventions. In Whitewater West Industries v. Alleshouse, the Federal Circuit, applying California law, held that an assignment provision capturing an invention the employee conceived after the employment ended is void under Business and Professions Code section 16600 as a restraint on engaging in a lawful profession or business — and it is not rescued by sections 2870–2872.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "whitewater-void",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Whitewater West Industries, Ltd. v. Alleshouse",
            "citation": "Whitewater W. Indus., Ltd. v. Alleshouse, 981 F.3d 1045 (Fed. Cir. 2020).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4807394/whitewater-west-industries-v-alleshouse/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4807394/whitewater-west-industries-v-alleshouse/#:~:text=In%20particular%2C%20we%20reverse%20the,is%20void%20under%20California%20law.",
            "proposition": "Whitewater West v. Alleshouse holds that an assignment provision reaching a former employee's post-employment invention is void under California law.",
            "verbatimQuote": "In particular, we reverse the judgment of breach of contract because we hold that the assignment provision is void under California law.",
            "date": "2020-11-19",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/california#src-whitewater-void"
          },
          {
            "id": "whitewater-16600",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Whitewater West Industries, Ltd. v. Alleshouse",
            "citation": "Whitewater W. Indus., Ltd. v. Alleshouse, 981 F.3d 1045 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (quoting Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 16600).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4807394/whitewater-west-industries-v-alleshouse/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4807394/whitewater-west-industries-v-alleshouse/#:~:text=First%2C%20California%20Business%20and%20Professions,is%20to%20that%20extent%20void.%E2%80%9D",
            "proposition": "Whitewater grounds its holding in Business and Professions Code section 16600, which voids every contract that restrains a person from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business.",
            "verbatimQuote": "First, California Business and Professions Code § 16600 states: “Except as provided in this chapter, every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void.”",
            "date": "2020-11-19",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/california#src-whitewater-16600"
          },
          {
            "id": "whitewater-notrade",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Whitewater West Industries, Ltd. v. Alleshouse",
            "citation": "Whitewater W. Indus., Ltd. v. Alleshouse, 981 F.3d 1045 (Fed. Cir. 2020).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4807394/whitewater-west-industries-v-alleshouse/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4807394/whitewater-west-industries-v-alleshouse/#:~:text=No%20trade%2Dsecret%20or%20other%20confidential,the%20assignment%20provision%20to%20apply.",
            "proposition": "Whitewater observes that the trailing-assignment provision applied even though no trade-secret or confidential information needed to be used to conceive or reduce the invention to practice — marking it as an unlimited post-employment restraint, not a trade-secret protection saved by sections 2870–2872.",
            "verbatimQuote": "No trade-secret or other confidential information need have been used to conceive the invention or reduce it to practice for the assignment provision to apply.",
            "date": "2020-11-19",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/california#src-whitewater-notrade"
          },
          {
            "id": "stat-2872-practice",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Cal. Lab. Code § 2872",
            "citation": "Cal. Lab. Code § 2872.",
            "url": "https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=LAB&sectionNum=2872",
            "proposition": "Section 2872 requires an employer whose agreement contains an assignment provision to give the employee, at the time the agreement is made, a written notification that the agreement does not apply to an invention qualifying fully under section 2870.",
            "verbatimQuote": "If an employment agreement entered into after January 1, 1980, contains a provision requiring the employee to assign or offer to assign any of his or her rights in any invention to his or her employer, the employer must also, at the time the agreement is made, provide a written notification to the employee that the agreement does not apply to an invention which qualifies fully under the provisions of Section 2870.",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/california#src-stat-2872-practice"
          }
        ]
      }
    ]
  }
}